Comparison Between The Aesthete Man And Ethical Man

This post is a summary of a research paper "The Aesthete In Nineteenth Century Philosophy and Literature" (Tuckman, 2008) that I thought was interesting to read. For the full copy of the research paper click here. 

Hedonist Lifestyle 

The hedonistic way of life is the heart of the aesthetic way of living. A hedonist is someone motivated by the sensual pleasures offered in life. But if applied in Kierkgaard's use of the term, hedonism is not just the brutish craving of physical satisfaction; it includes a more refined pleasure-seeking of the intellectual aesthete. In simple terms an aesthete's pleasures may come from the contemplation of beauty and appreciation of works of art or sometimes include sadistic exercise of power. A hedonist as is most universally known, is blinded by the superficial appearance of the object of affection. In contrast, an aesthete person can appreciate and admire beauty not just from the sexual. Seduction is a quintessential past time for those who adopt the aesthetic way of life.

In ''The Seducer's Diary'' the seducer's aim is to get a particular young woman to fall in love with him then later withdrawing his affection from the woman. He succeeds in this but in this case the pleasure he has acquired is not from a simple physical gratification but a kind of psychological sadism. In this way the hedonist demonstrates a quality that has a very powerful emotional effect to his ''victim''. To be very vindictive at its highest form.The aesthete puts the individual at the whim of outside events and circumstances thus showing his ability to find joy in everything that he do but he must rely on aspects of the world to stimulate him. From this point of view, the aesthete must possess a palpable sense of self-deception, he hides behind a mask whilst shirking responsibility for his freedom. A hedonist though able to purport a pursuit of beauty could never reveal the true beauty of humanity then as an ethical individual could. 

Ethic Man Lifestyle 

The ethical way of living is a life of responsible choices. The ethical individual chooses his or her own actions and is always motivated from within; it is transforming yourself into someone whose choices coincide with duty. This approach requires a great deal of self-knowledge and the point of adapting this is to transform yourself into what Wilheim terms the ''universal individual''. The individual somehow chooses to become a model of humanity. In contrast to the aesthete's way of living, the ethical man deriving its roots from the word "ethics" which is the branch of philosophy that addresses questions of morality, does not follow a set of rules and simply obeying them. Instead they see beyond their current circumstance and formulate a kind of "understanding" the aesthete man might struggle to comprehend on his own. They have the ability to reveal the true beauty of humanity in ways that an aesthete never can. 

Comparison 

The ethical man sees through the individual's aestheticism and presents him with a solid, if staid, alternative. While he would provide the aesthete the alternative to be a "universal man", the ethical man claims that only through seizing control of your life and putting it beyond contingent events can you fulfil your nature. Kierkgaard states that the aesthete is more or less at the whim of what happens - he would only rely to the aspects of the world to stimulate him whilst Willheim asserts the ethical man ensures that the self remains intact even if chance events hinder his/her goals and desires. The ethical man would find ways to grow his "soul". On the other hand, according to the existentialist interpretation of the ethical man versus the aesthete man the reader is given a fundamental choice between the two approaches to life. We were born with no guidelines to which approach in life to choose: we must then choose between the two and from there create ourselves through that choice.But contrary to views that dominated the enlightenment period there is no such thing as a "right" answer to the all-important question "How should I live?" 

An individual may choose the ethical approach and this would only appeal to him if he is already committed to the ethical approach to life just as the aesthetical approach to life would appeal to a man already committed to the aesthetic approach. To suggest that the aesthetic approach is evil is to simply imply that there is already a clear difference between the two approach; good and evil. Additionally, to suggest that if you reject the aesthetic the only other option is the ethical approach and vice-versa. This is a very simplistic view of Kierkgaard's reading meaning, there are other ways of ''living our life''. A person could adapt both the approach in his lifetime and to classify him in one of the approaches could be misleading. It should be made clear that the aesthete and ethical approach to living is open to a wide range of interpretation and Kierkgaard's intentions is not easy to discern. A third approach could well be established just as a fourth, a fifth and a sixth could exist.